I was cruising the 'bay last night and I happened upon this coin.

Walkerfan · January 27, 2017 8:41AM

I decided that I liked the looks and the OGH, so I pulled the trigger. I already have a 1937 P OGH, so this is the first time ever that I bought a duplicate coin that I plan to keep. My set is at a point, now, that I can start doing that. I may become a hoarder, now, as well as a collector/investor, which I think is rather cool. How do you like this one?

fivecents · January 27, 2017 8:42AM

What is the grade?

AUandAG · January 27, 2017 8:45AM

grip · January 27, 2017 8:48AM

I would think about a dip.

TomB · January 27, 2017 8:54AM

Looks like a high grade coin with lots of skin.

Walkerguy21D · January 27, 2017 8:54AM

Excellent strike and nice original skin.

No problem with you buying up dupes....I piled up early date/mid grade coins for years before slowly divesting most of them. I had five 21P's in F/VF at one point LOL, and 16S's in all grades from VG-AU. Hey, someone had to keep them away from the hoarders

Walkerfan · January 27, 2017 8:59AM

@fivecents said:
What is the grade?

I'll reveal that tonight.

asheland · January 27, 2017 9:03AM

Nice!

ChrisH821 · January 27, 2017 9:26AM

I like it, nice strike. Unless I am missing something I'd guess it's in a 65 holder.

Wabbit2313 · January 27, 2017 9:30AM

Strike is nice! Not a fan of the brownish toning. I personally think OGH coins are generally overgraded. (What is left of them)

On a side note, I bought a bunch of Redfield's from the same seller!

fivecents · January 27, 2017 9:53AM

@Walkerfan said:

@fivecents said:
What is the grade?

I'll reveal that tonight.

Oh okay. Not a fan of the tan toning or luster.

My guess would be MS63 maybe MS64.

learningcoins · January 27, 2017 10:19AM

Looks so nice as an original coin and not dipped and bright. I can see why you would keep two this nice!

AMRC · January 27, 2017 10:27AM

It is a very original coin, and I am actually impressed that you like it. I am always encouraged when collectors appreciate original coins over dipped out white coins. Yes, there are original white coins, but when you think about the volatility of Silver, and the fact that many of these coins have gone through many decades to get here, there clearly should be a lot fewer than we actually see on the bourse.

Unknown · January 27, 2017 10:39AM

This content has been removed.

airplanenut · January 27, 2017 10:42AM

I'd like to see how it really looks with the lustre lighting up the skin. That said, it looks like there's a small piece of debris causing a spot to grow on the right corner of the flag/dress.

Sandman70gt · January 27, 2017 10:44AM

Very well struck. Older holder probably says 65, but looks 66 to me.
Not a fan of the green, but it's so original I would leave it green, cause they can't all be blast white.

DIMEMAN · January 27, 2017 11:02AM

The only distraction to me is the spot on her foot. Overall very nice coin. I like the originality over dipped out white. Very nice mark free fields.

crazyhounddog · January 27, 2017 12:35PM

I like it a lot if ya wanna know. I find it extremely beautiful. Very nice score.

Wabbit2313 · January 27, 2017 1:38PM

What I find humorous is the "I like the non-dipped look". I go 50/50 the ugly brown haze is most likely not properly rinsed dip residue, from way back when

astrorat · January 27, 2017 2:01PM

I love original, toned pieces ... but not this one (sorry). The haze looks like environmental damage due to poor storage or improper rinsing.

dlmtorts · January 27, 2017 2:58PM

I think it is an improperly rinsed dip. Can't tell about luster hiding under the skin from the pic. I would guess ms 65. Nice coin.

SkyMan · January 27, 2017 3:09PM

Nice original coin. Hoarding is Fun!

Wabbit2313 · January 27, 2017 3:12PM

@MANOFCOINS said:
65 older holder, 66 current holder

This is about backwards. If it's OGH 66, it would be 65 today. Those holders are terrible, especially in this series and Morgans.

Walkerfan · January 27, 2017 4:50PM

@Wabbit2313 said:
What I find humorous is the "I like the non-dipped look". I go 50/50 the ugly brown haze is most likely not properly rinsed dip residue, from way back when

I'll keep an open mind about this possibility and will let you know, when I get it in hand.

@Wabbit2313 said:

@MANOFCOINS said:
65 older holder, 66 current holder

This is about backwards. If it's OGH 66, it would be 65 today. Those holders are terrible, especially in this series and Morgans.

This is completely false. I have found many nice Walkers in OGHs and have seen many more get cracked and upgraded.

The coin in my OP is a MS 66 and is properly graded.

Wabbit2313 · January 27, 2017 5:29PM

@Walkerfan said:

@Wabbit2313 said:
What I find humorous is the "I like the non-dipped look". I go 50/50 the ugly brown haze is most likely not properly rinsed dip residue, from way back when

I'll keep an open mind about this possibility and will let you know, when I get it in hand.

@Wabbit2313 said:

@MANOFCOINS said:
65 older holder, 66 current holder

This is about backwards. If it's OGH 66, it would be 65 today. Those holders are terrible, especially in this series and Morgans.

This is completely false. I have found many nice Walkers in OGHs and have seen many more get cracked and upgraded.

The coin in my OP is a MS 66 and is properly graded.

As far as completely false, are you saying every OGH is undergraded or correct? Boy do I have some news for you! In the old days, when I also believed this, I took a beating cracking those. Using your coin as an example, you would do well to get a 65 if you cracked it and removed the ugly residue. Under the brown stuff, you will find some whacks on the sun, one of the money areas. If you choose not to restore it, you will get a point deduction for the ugly residue/toning. It might even go 64 if you left it as is.

For less than $350, (The price paid) you can get one CAC verified without the old dip while saving regrading expenses.

If you post a coin for opinions, you might as well be ready to receive them. I have cracked several hundred walkers. This of course is my opinion.

abcde12345 · January 27, 2017 7:51PM

Looks like a proof.

mannie gray · January 28, 2017 12:08AM

It may look better in hand and probably will, but from the pics I'm not a huge fan.
But if you like it that all that matters.

ricko · January 28, 2017 7:29AM

Looks like a well struck Walker.... and 65 would have been my guess.... It does appear to have been dipped before, but I say that without an 'in hand' evaluation. Just the same, I would have been tempted by that one as well... Cheers, RickO

logger7 · January 28, 2017 7:35AM

The really nice ones have better and thicker luster than most other silver coins as well they should especially as they approach gem grade.

SeattleSlammer · January 28, 2017 2:19PM

I've seen that coin floating around on eBay for a while ..... I think it probably needs better pics .... let us know what it looks like in-hand.....

Walkerfan · January 28, 2017 5:25PM

@SeattleSlammer said:
I've seen that coin floating around on eBay for a while ..... I think it probably needs better pics .... let us know what it looks like in-hand.....

I sure will.

Barndog · January 28, 2017 5:52PM

too bad it doesn't look like your icon coin!

DollarAfterDollar · January 28, 2017 7:28PM

Not a big fan. I sort of agree that the toning looks a lot like the haze that results after 15 years after a poor dipping rinse. The rub on the breast may be stacking rub but jumps off the coin.

I'll guess MS 65 at most.

KellenCoin · January 28, 2017 10:02PM

Not a fan of the toning but nice coin!

ShadyDave · January 29, 2017 8:27AM

@Wabbit2313 said:

@Walkerfan said:

@Wabbit2313 said:
What I find humorous is the "I like the non-dipped look". I go 50/50 the ugly brown haze is most likely not properly rinsed dip residue, from way back when

I'll keep an open mind about this possibility and will let you know, when I get it in hand.

@Wabbit2313 said:

@MANOFCOINS said:
65 older holder, 66 current holder

This is about backwards. If it's OGH 66, it would be 65 today. Those holders are terrible, especially in this series and Morgans.

This is completely false. I have found many nice Walkers in OGHs and have seen many more get cracked and upgraded.

The coin in my OP is a MS 66 and is properly graded.

As far as completely false, are you saying every OGH is undergraded or correct? Boy do I have some news for you! In the old days, when I also believed this, I took a beating cracking those. Using your coin as an example, you would do well to get a 65 if you cracked it and removed the ugly residue. Under the brown stuff, you will find some whacks on the sun, one of the money areas. If you choose not to restore it, you will get a point deduction for the ugly residue/toning. It might even go 64 if you left it as is.

For less than $350, (The price paid) you can get one CAC verified without the old dip while saving regrading expenses.

If you post a coin for opinions, you might as well be ready to receive them. I have cracked several hundred walkers. This of course is my opinion.

Just because you can't find nice coins in OGH, doesn't mean the rest of us can't. You need to individually asses each coin to determine that.

Back in October I bought an ogh ms64-fb Mercury dime from an eBay shop from one of our members here for $24 that caught my eye. I cracked it out and had it graded 67-fb at PCGS last week and now it's "worth" around $225. That might not be the case every time, but I still see nice coins in OGH...

learningcoins · January 29, 2017 8:37AM

I can see I have a little different taste in coins than the majority here. I would love to have an album full of coins that look like this one.

cmanbb · January 29, 2017 9:22AM

I like the skin also. Granted the brownish toning may or may not add to the appeal of originality, but original non the less. Similar to the last one I ran across when on eBay. Saw this 1928S with a BIN for under a grand, and hit the button. Also similar skin on my 23S too.

Walkerfan · January 29, 2017 9:26AM

Wow....NICE!!! Do you realize how tough those two coins are to find in those grades? Very low pops....much lower than MS coins. Well done and with CAC stickers, too. You were wise to pick those up.

cmanbb · January 29, 2017 9:34AM

@Walkerfan said:
Wow....NICE!!! Do you realize how tough those two coins are to find in those grades? Very low pops. Well done and with CAC stickers, too. You were wise to pick those up.

Thanks WF.
I do realize this. Hence jumping on BIN immediately when I saw it. Just like the OP's coin....nice skin. I'm sure had it been white (like so many out there) coin, he would have just moved on. The skin, albeit brownish is what makes that coin.

abcde12345 · January 29, 2017 10:19AM

Those coins shown can't be proofs because of the s (meaning it isn't Phillidelphis where only proofs are made).

cmanbb · January 29, 2017 10:26AM

@abcde12345 said:
Those coins shown can't be proofs because of the s (meaning it isn't Phillidelphis where only proofs are made)

Not sure what your asking, or saying?

Wabbit2313 · January 29, 2017 11:44AM

cmanbb, those coins are SWEET! I also do not agree that they have the same look as the OP coin. They are lovely.

joebb21 · January 29, 2017 11:46AM

ms66. could go 67 with a bath

Walkerfan · February 7, 2017 10:16AM

Well, I've had enough time to think about it and I've decided that I really DO like the looks of it.

The toning does not look like dip residue to me, in hand, but rather 24-27 year old natural re-toning, as it's in a PCGS #3.0 OGH made between 1990-1993. It's also not as profound, in hand, as in those images.

The small ring around her ankle doesn't distract me much, either, and is not very noticeable, in hand, and can only be seen at a certain angle. It is not thick or dark and looks clear under the halogen light and with a loupe, when swirled around---it's there but it's no big deal.

The small spot on the breast is not rub, either, as there are no surface/luster breaks. It's just a toning spot and I've seen it on many, many high grade Walkers. It is very common in that area. I even asked a professional grader about these, once before, as I often wondered why so many high grade Walkers had these marks. He said "Very common on the breast and not necessarily indicative of 'roll rub' in that area of a MS coin."

@Wabbit2313 :

I completely disagree with your Walker grading. This coin has a smooth , unblemished right facing field and very sharp strike with full thumb, skirts and head. It also has prominent luster bands on the left and right side of the obverse and off of the eagle's beak and down the feathers on the reverse (not as evident in the images). The very minor ticks on the sun are consistent for the grade and would not keep it from 66. If this coin were cracked; I think it would grade, at least 66 again, or POSSIBLY higher today. To say it is only a 64 is laughable, imho.

Also, you were wrong about being able to pick up a 1937 P 66 OGH CAC WLH for under $350, as the last two sold for $399 and $517, respectively, on Heritage. Also, you must tack on another $25 for HA shipping fees, whereas my coin was shipped for free. This coin is worth a mere $350 to me and I'm gonna salt it away and gladly keep it in my stable. I like the looks of the coin and the OGH.....I guess I'm crazy.

Despite your somewhat antagonistic/insulting critique of my coin; I still thank you for your comments, as they got me fired up enough to really THINK about whether I actually liked this coin or not, which is a GOOD thing. I realize that you are a flamboyant poster and I still like to hear your opinions, as I know you've had some experience. I am not adverse to criticism, either. Your comments are always welcomed and I appreciate your honest opinion.

Walkerfan · February 7, 2017 10:26AM

duplicate

panexpoguy · February 7, 2017 10:48AM

@Walkerfan said:
Well, I've had enough time to look at it and I've decided that I really DO like the looks of it.

The toning does not look like dip residue to me, in hand, but rather 24-27 year old natural re-toning, as it's in a PCGS #3.0 OGH made between 1990-1993. It's also not as profound, in hand, as in those images.

The small ring around her ankle doesn't distract me much, either, and is not very noticeable, in hand, and can only be seen at a certain angle. It is not thick or dark and looks clear under the halogen light and with a loupe, when swirled around---it's there but it's no big deal.

The spot on the breast is not rub, either, as there are no surface/luster breaks. It's just a toning spot and I've seen it on many, many high grade Walkers. It is very common in that area. I even asked a professional grader about these, once before, as I often wondered why so many high grade Walkers had these marks. He said "Very common on the breast and not necessarily indicative of 'roll rub' in that area of a MS coin."

@Wabbit2313 :

I completely disagree with your Walker grading. This coin has a smooth , unblemished right facing field and very sharp strike with full thumb, skirts and head. It also has prominent luster bands on the left and right side of the obverse and off of the eagle's beak and down the feathers on the reverse (not as evident in the images). The very minor ticks on the sun are consistent for the grade and would not keep it from 66. If this coin were cracked; I think it would grade, at least 66 again, or POSSIBLY higher today. To say it is only a 64 is laughable, imho.

Also, you were wrong about being able to pick up a 1937 P 66 OGH CAC WLH for under $350, as the last two sold for $399 and $517, respectively, on Heritage. This coin is worth a mere $350 to me and I'm gonna salt it away and gladly keep it in my stable. I like the looks of the coin and the OGH.....I guess I'm crazy.

Despite your somewhat antagonistic/insulting critique of my coin; I still thank you for your comments, as they got me fired up enough to really THINK about whether I actually liked this coin or not, which is a GOOD thing. I realize that you are a flamboyant poster and I still like to hear your opinions, as I know you've had some experience. I am not adverse to criticism, either. Your comments are always welcomed and I appreciate your honest opinion.

I agree with you Walkerfan. I had a similar conversation about this Merc a few months back.

This is also a 1937P. This also CAC'd. For 1937 coins, I believe this is indicative of how residue from the manufacturing process affected toning over time. In my opinion, neither coin has EVER been dipped.

Walkerfan · February 7, 2017 11:21AM

@panexpoguy said:

I agree with you Walkerfan. I had a similar conversation about this Merc a few months back. This is also a 1937P. This also CAC'd. For 1937 coins, I believe this is indicative of how residue from the manufacturing process affected toning over time. In my opinion, neither coin has EVER been dipped.

I like your Merc and the toning looks very similar to my Walker.

Wabbit2313 · February 7, 2017 6:00PM

@Walkerfan said:

Also, you were wrong about being able to pick up a 1937 P 66 OGH CAC WLH for under $350, as the last two sold for $399 and $517, respectively, on Heritage. Also, you must tack on another $25 for HA shipping fees, whereas my coin was shipped for free. This coin is worth a mere $350 to me and I'm gonna salt it away and gladly keep it in my stable. I like the looks of the coin and the OGH.....I guess I'm crazy.

Are you really comparing a CAC coin to yours? Nice try. You are using both CAC examples and one was sold a year ago. Umm, many coins sold for more 1 year ago.

So lets compare the REAL last 2 coins sold, both with CAC. One is a 66+ and the other is a 66. $329 each and you do not have to have them regraded or sent to CAC at that price, which is exactly what I said.

In case you didn't notice, yours is "not" CAC. If a rock falls out of the sky striking John in the head, and he actually stickers that, I will still not like it. I can't get past a bad rinse job on a coin, no matter what holder it is in. I don't think CAC can either.

Cheers!

bestday · February 8, 2017 7:55AM

Can't dismiss the OGHs ..use the glass 1/2 full thought .. bought a 1941 Walker 66 OGH last year ,at a B&M... coin was in one of those rolling show cases ....submitted to PCGS ,came back a 67

I was cruising the 'bay last night and I happened upon this coin.

Comments

Leave a Comment